Filed under: Government and Politics, History, Philosophy | Tags: american history, Christianity, church, deism, ethics, faith, founding fathers, humanism, Jesus, morality, Philosophy, rationalism, religion, trinity, unitarianism, universalism
disbelieve them all.”
Filed under: History, Philosophy | Tags: revolution, culture, eurocentrism, identity, american history, early america, nationalism, war of 1812, great awakening, puritans, french revolution, napoleon, declaration of rights of man, premature nationalism
‘Premature’ Nationalism
What can be termed the conclusive definition of the word ‘nationalism’ is ambiguous in meaning and of great controversy. The context of its existence contains a menagerie of layers and innumerable facets however in reference to early american art and the colonists’ search for a homogenous identity, the term will be used as a nation-state selfhood (or rather, the search thereof) and its intrinsic, submissive, correlative relation to the development of culture and identity (Zheng.) The phenomena that is a unified attitude of members of a nation is detailed in its nature yet the complexity goes only so far into contemporary history for the majority of sense of self, just like in humans, is established for the most part at a young age. A typical teenager may go through different stages in the search for self, but the foundation on which he or she was raised and the innate senses of morality generally do not see radical change. This theory is also true for a young nation; the foundation on which it was nourished instills the majority of its philosophies early on in history, and from there on out some political instances may cause for gradual change that which usually does not differ much from the original philosophy anyway (for instance the equality of man and individual rights were established in the constitution; the abolition of slavery therefore was not a radical change in the scheme of US political notion)(Miscevic.) It is also of great importance to understand that the progress made during pre-revolution America under Britain affected the development of a national identity (which would also go for nations undergoing severe government and societal changes) differently than would have a historical event that happened while it was an actual nation. Nenad Miscevic, a notable scholar, philosophical leader, author of many books and an extremely well cultured man once said:
”It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. “
This quote came from the book Nationalism and Ethic Conflict, a collection of 14 essays by leading philosophers he edited. This statement justifies the theory that nationalism is possible within a state to some extent but because it lacks an ethnic or cultural community a true identity recognized by the powers of the world would not be possible. This leads to the next point which is the possibility of premature nationalism being solely a figment of the imagination of modern Americans. The states had characteristics of nations and experienced feelings of nationalism within themselves; colonists proudly explained that they were from Pennsylvania or South Carolina… they proclaimed they were Virginians, not Americans. Many modernists forget this and think that America was a single, nationalistic entity from the very beginning but that was not how it was; there were many distinguished parts in early America. There are also other modernists who do know that there were feelings of separation in the states and thus label early nationalism as ‘premature’ (in the sense that it was not ‘true’ at the time)(Nielsen.) Even after the revolution it took time, the War of 1812, the conclusion of the Civil War, and Lee’s personal values -making America seem like a family that which should avoid internal conflict as much as possible- to set the role for America to secure a sense of complete unity rather than the prevalent feeling of just a confederacy of states(Maier.) Rather than the US as its own entity, at first there were a bunch of pseudo-identities evident not only on a state level, but in the sections of the north, south, east and west. A vague identity or basically a stereotype of a country is procured over time usually in conjunction with the development of a new culture. But how is a culture defined and how does said culture develop this identity? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines culture in the following ways:
1: cultivation
2: the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education
3: expert care and training <beauty culture>
4 a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills
5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations
b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>
c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line> d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture> <changing the culture of materialism will take time — Peggy O’Mara>
6: the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation
Because entry 5b is most applicable to identity, it is what will be the standard in this context. How are customary beliefs, social forms and material traits formed to create culture? These topics are of extreme controversy and the questions that arise from the answers will have one spiraling into a never ending cloud of philosophical debate. On a more concentrated note I will discuss the emergence of a unified culture and ‘premature’ national identity during early America.
The first indication of a unification of people began right from the start of colonization. The first settlements in the early 1600’s were appealing to Europeans because of the economic difficulties from 1620-1635 and because they sought freedom of religion, escape from political oppression and the mere abundance of opportunities unavailable to be pursued at home (Maier.) This common quest for freedom brought the people together and set the grounds for which the constitution and government framework would later be built upon. It is also important to keep in mind the importance of religious freedom for the Great Awakenings were an integral part of bringing together people for a common cause (although in the aspect of slavery it divided, in the many other causes such as the quest for a universal sense of morality it unified.) After the development of Jamestown, the influence of British colonists, the bout of anarchy governance and indian attacks and disease, the Puritans began infiltrating Massachusetts. Insisting their Calvinistic perspective on faith and worship were paramount to Catholicism, they basically undermined the solidarity of the state church threatening a divide in the masses and the destruction of the monarchy. After debate on whether or not the church would be able to fully transform, they decided to board the Mayflower for Massachusetts where their leader, John Winthrop would instruct them on creating a city of people who’s lives revolved solely around religion and belief and became the example for potential future Christians (Maier.) Skip ahead to 1680 when it became evident America would be a melting pot of several different cultures. English, Dutch, Swedish, German, French Huguenots, slaves from Africa, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese and Scot-Irish people began pouring into the colonies, raising the population exponentially. Now flash back to Miscevic’s quote, if what defines a nation (union) is ethnicity and culture, how did the assimilation of a menagerie of incredibly different ethnicities and cultures just in one area come to be one and develop nationalism and identity?
The first and second Great Awakenings have attributed much to the foundation of an independently thinking, unified body of people and subsequently a nation developing the traits needed to present an identity. Characterized by an increase of religious activity, the Great Awakenings got people coming together for services, reading the Bible, teaching the Bible to their families and possibly having an impact on the political affairs of America such as the Revolution (Maier.) It many not seem completely obvious at first, what with the array of different religions and the freedom to pick whichever one desires, but religion is for the most part based off of the same concepts. There are different names, paths of history, and some other seemingly radical differences, but essentially religion is based on a foundation of morals that which correspond to reality, human nature and either a (or several) high power or human divine path of life (Nielsen.) Because the majority of colonists’ beliefs could be placed under Christianity however, it’s much easier to assess than say if there were an abundance of Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Baha’is etc! With everyone reading the same Bible, the same principles of ethics and morality, the same book of rules for living… would they not be influenced in other ways? If religion is an everlasting devotion and more importantly a way of life, it is almost certain that with the majority of masses conforming to a set of moral principles will use their newfound conscience to act on political issues. For instance in the Second Great Awakening! The abolition of slavery was due in large to the sheer numbers of people believing the same moral: that man is equal before the eyes of God and therefore should be treated accordingly by government (Maier.) Only a few years later, as the Civil War came to a conclusion, slavery became illegal and gradually all races became equal (sexes a bit later.) And so, this perfectly justifies the theory of unification of thought correlating directly with unified political action. The masses, despite differences in heritage, began thinking a like. They read and lived by the same book, had the same morals and excerscized their powers in a democratic society to the fullest advantage. In a way, America was the perfect candidate to develop a ‘premature,’ or perhaps just early, sense of nationalism… people went there because they wanted change, to escape their current governments and to look for opportunity. I quote Kai Nielsen,
“We are, to put it crudely, lost if we cannot identify ourselves with some part of an objective social reality: a nation, though not necessarily a state, with its distinctive traditions. What we find in people — and as deeply embedded as the need to develop their talents — is the need not only to be able to say what they can do but to say who they are. This is found, not created, and is found in the identification with others in a shared culture based on nationality or race or religion or some slice or amalgam thereof. … Under modern conditions, this securing and nourishing of a national consciousness can only be achieved with a nation-state that corresponds to that national consciousness.”
So many different people of different cultures, different origins came to this new place with the same hopes, so many if not all of them came and read the same book, were exposed to the same mass material and so many began thinking a like as a nation, a ‘national conscience’, a unified body of humans with similar interests for their country, a new conglomerated culture of Americans.
Although a lot of emphasis is put on religion as a great sculptor of culture, but there were many other instances of influence such as that of Eurocentrism. Kind of like a non deliberate form of cultural imperialism, eurocentrism eased the assimilation of different cultures into one pliable mold because most cultures thrived (for reasons of debate) to be more like Europeans. The definition of Eurocentrism is basically the common, possibly subconcious, belief that Eurpoean culture was preeminent to others. Other prominent things that gave Americans an appearance of unity involved the French Revolution and the War of 1812. The French Revolution induced prodigious results in world culture (Padbury.) To this day the US, Myanmar and Liberia are the only countries that do not use the metric system. Perhaps the French Revolutionary war was the the start of Eurocentrism as its impact on modern warfare, fashion, the abolition of slavery and most importantly, the ‘birth’ of nationalism, affected most, if not all, countries associated with them. The Revolution along with the Declaration of Rights of Man prompted citizens to take pride in their country, heritage, language and history. It became an ever lasting trend that rather than a king, monarch or government representing a country that the people themselves as citizens within territorial boundaries would be regarded as a Nation. People from France no longer proclaimed themselves Europeans, but French from France. Also, with many non-english speaking nations forming law codes that stemmed from the Napoleonic Code, access to the popular ideology of equality before the law, freedom of concience and work, the rights and protection of property and the separation of church and state became easy to incorporate into new governments. This proves important because with the pseudo-eurocentristic government ideology, it became apparent that the many new nations would not only favour Napoleans ideas of democracy, but also the product of his effect on a country experiencing revolution: Nationalism. The War of 1812 was significant in developing a nationalistic union of people because the new international respect gained from withstanding the forces of Great Britain (that which were among the most powerful in the world at the time) gave the people meaning to be proud (Maier.) After the Second War of Independence America was finally recognized as its own entity. It is also important to nationalism that the US won the War of 1812 because had they not then ‘premature’ nationalism would probably be the more abundant term not only now, but then as well. Not to mention all the other variables that could have happened, they would have been deemed perhaps not completely ready for independence and certainly not respect or pride. Fortunately it was a (rather subtle) US victory and the respect from other nations prompted the people to look upon themselves as one people rather than in the context of people within states within a nation. Their dignified accord illuminated the entire country with nationalism.
Although there are many other instances that add to the formation of culture, there is now enough clarity to the subject that an adequate description of early American nationalism may be assimilated. The accumulation of commonalities from various facets procured a unique culture for Americans. Despite original cultural differences stemming from heritage, background etc and later state pride (as opposed to national pride), the people of early America came together as a nation, proud of their country for the respect it earned from other nations through hard work, proud for their unique assimilation of democratic practices and proud for being a distinctive, independent entity in the world. The switch of dominance in power from states to federal also helped in creating a national identity and even after the Civil War despite many Southerners reluctance to conform, the many people who gained equal rights perhaps surpassed (in nationalistic pride) those who were oppressing them. Nationalism is inevidable for any nation that does or has had experience as a world power. Even at the birth of a new country does a new culture form and subsequently, a new identity for the independent, defined territory known as a nation. According to Alan Patten,
“[there is a]… profound importance of culture in shaping a person’s identity and outlook, treating people in accordance with liberal egalitarian principles means ensuring the equal survival and success of the cultures to which they belong.” (4)
If that is true, than is the persons identity and outlook not proportional to the identity and outlook of the entire nation? Is it a strong cultural foundation that shapes a nation into an equality driven, free, democratic nation? If so than by ‘cultures to which they belong,’ couldn’t Patten very well have said the nation to which they belong? Through historical events, a few of which have been mentioned, the US has been transformed from a separated union of state pride into a single entity exuberanting nationalism; from an assimilation of a menagerie of cultures and heritages to a group of Americans. Although she may have been young to be so prideful, America experienced no such ‘premature’ nationalism; her time has simply been confused by modernists over the years.
Works Cited
1. Maier, Pauline, Merrit R. Smith, Alexander Keyssar, and Daniel Kevles. Inventing America. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003.
2. Zheng, Yongnian. Discovering Chinese Nationalism in China : Modernization, Identity, and International Relations. New York: Cambridge UP, 1999.
3. Miscevic, Nenad. “Nationalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 24 Sept. 2005. 3 Aug. 2008 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/>.
4. Miscevic, Nenad, ed. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict : Philosophical Perspectives. Boston: Open Court Company, 2000.
5. Nielsen, Kai, 1998-99, “Cosmopolitanism, Universalism and Particularism in the age of Nationalism and Multiculturalism,” Philosophical Exchange, 29: 3-34.
6. Padbury, Michael. “Effects of the French Revolution.” 7 Aug. 2008 <http://www.helium.com/items/192963-effects-of-the-french-revolution>.
Filed under: History | Tags: Art, artist, biography, american history, art history, copley, painting, oil painting, watson and the shark, young lady with a bird and dog, american revolution art, british art, early america, contemporary history painting, portraiture, return of neptune, boy with the squirrel, margaret kemble gage, death of major pierson
*note: disregard the [fig.] citations as I didn’t include the pictorial reference here.*
From the shadows of early colonial America’s primordial tree of culture precipitously sprang the first native born creative genius, John Singleton Copley. By the mid eighteenth century British American colonies began to experience a consumer revolution along with the beginning fathoms of American independent fate. Luxurious imports from Europe such as furniture, silverware, textiles and exotic food goods such as tea, coffee and chocolate further stoked the rise of consumerism with the possible fulfillment of the pursuit for American elitism and the appearance of refinement and gentility (Barker.) The plantations of the South began housing beautiful imported furniture, paintings and other decorative art. Although art in the colonies was not extremely expansive, mostly due to the premature state of nationalism, it was still expressed mostly through portraiture, battle scenes and political drawings (Barker.) John Singleton Copley was the first ‘real’ American artist. Although he often used old backdrops and portraiture itself is often regarded as a ‘degenerate’ form of art, he had a profound, intrinsic power of characterization, and later a progressive concept of contemporary historical art (National Gallery of Art.) His ability to capture the very essence of his human subject was breathtaking. His style as an artist, individual and conceptualist radiates powerfully from the beautiful, stark chiaroscuro, soft eyed, supple skinned, perfectly draped works of brilliance he created during one of the least supportive times in a place perhaps not yet ready for such a sense of cultural liberalism.
Born into a poor, uncultured family (presumably) in Boston, Massachusetts in 1738, Copley’s artistic skill was shaped post 1748 when his mother remarried his step-father Peter Pelham who was an artist and English engraver (National Gallery of Art.) Other than the family lineage and his evident gift for drawing, little is known of his early childhood including whether or not he went to school, apprenticed with seasoned artists and participated in any other activities. The earliest found artifact relevant to him is a letter dated September 30th, 1762 which reveals a literate, intelligent, seemingly schooled man (Flexner.) This could possibly be attributed to his step father as well who taught various school subjects along with dancing and the visual arts (Matthew.) There is much debate over whether or not Copley was completely self taught in his artistic craft; obviously his step father showed him the rudimentary techniques of an artist, but many (including his family) have pressed that his turning ordinary painting into artistry as being wholly and unconditionally self taught (Flexner.) A prominent theme regarding self teaching during this time period was embodied by Poor Richard:
“Learn of the skilful; he that teaches himself hath a fool for a master.”
Although said quote was very popular, a favourite for Franklin, Sir Joshua Reynolds offered the rebuttal,
“…few have been taught to any purpose who have not been their own teachers…”
It is likely that, although his family and surrounding friends argued that his talent was nourished solely in solidarity, he was probably taught rough technique, color compliments etc while he was a student/learning from his step father… however when he transitioned from a student to taking the learned skills and transforming them into his own innovative creation, he then became his own teacher from thereon out into history giving the impression that he was completely self taught. It is plausible to believe the accusations because regardless of the fact that he was the first legitimate American painter, compare him to the seasoned painters in Europe who would apprentice for years and years under great masters learning all that they could (Barker.) Despite the fact that America wanted him to be a portrait and battle artist (that which most painters were forced into regardless of their interests due to finances) of which he had never even seen good examples of and despite his debatable schooling background that which would never had added up to that of a European student painters schooling anyhow… he was able to capture the very soul(s) of his subject(s) in his paintings. There were no other great artists in America at the time… Robert Feke was the first (and most recognized name at the beginning of the colonial period) of American painters to receive recognition for his portraiture but even his work was criticized for having too much emphasis on color and line rather than the subject as a whole… Copleys first few paintings evoked MUCH more emotional inquiry in viewers than the work of Feke (Barker.) The topic over his schooling is obviously of great controversy; should Copley not have had any prior exposure to other great artists’ works than he indeed was the most gifted American painter not only throughout the colonial period, but through the test of time. His Da Vinci like use of chiaroscuro, the incredibly soft, delicate yet life like feel of skin he was able to create also Renaissance-like, the beautiful folds and highlights bringing feel and life to draped clothing and material all in addition to his incredible sense of composition and ability to produce human characteristics visually cast the mold for a man of great importance who was able to grasp thousands of years of aesthetic intelligence and lay the foundation for what would (much) later become the focus of (or perhaps, an unfortunate detriment to) American art… commercialism, consumerism and industrialism (National Gallery of Art.)
Copley began seriously painting portraits after his step father died when he was fourteen (Matthew.) In October of 1757 he did a portrait of Captain Thomas Ainslie who adored his work and suggested he move to Canada where there would be many portraits for him to do; he gently declined stating that he already had more than enough in America (Matthew.) His fame was most notably established in England in 1766 when his painting The Boy with the Squirrel, a portrait of his half brother Henry Pelham and a pet squirrel went on exhibition [Fig. 1](Matthew.) This show was crucial to his becoming a famous painter not only in America, but in Britain as well (Barker.) He was soon elected to be a Fellow of the Society of Artists of Great Britain by a vote in September of 1766 and was later admitted into the Royal Academy where he stood among the ranks of seasoned British painters (Barker.) In 1769 he married Sussannah Farnum Clarke, a beautiful woman who would bear him six children and make for a happy and socially respected family [Fig. 5](Flexner.) The reputation of the Copley family was particularly noteworthy because the majority of artists, whether in America or elsewhere, were usually in the lower to middle class and generally not anywhere near part of the aristocracy as opposed to the Copleys who lead a life of luxury and elegance; a high contrast and impressionable example to what the stereotype was at the time (Matthew.) This was due in part and likewise due because of his personal interest in painting members of the upper class most. Although his popularity amongst all the colonists flourished, he only went on an American tour outside Boston once for a brief period of time in 1771 and didn’t stray all too far from the Northern states; many Southern portraits rumored to have been his were actually done by Henry Benbridge (Matthew.) After this time, around 1773 his contacts in England began pressing him to move. They insisted he was constantly being compared to the works of Vandyck, Reubens and other old master painters; his brother in law Jonathan Clarke urged him to move, tour Italy, find a suitable place in London, and then send for Mrs. Copley and the rest of the family (Clarke was already living in London at the time)(Barker.) Also during this time, in December of 1773 and early in 1774, the Boston Tea Party and the beginning of the intolerable acts prompted political and economic hardship directly effecting their lives (Maier.) What with their entire clientele being loyalists and threats being issued for involvement with them, London seemed to be calling at the perfect time. This political perspective on early American art was important because it was a precursor to what the nation’s culture and nationalism would later become after the Civil War…. commercial and industrial based. Artists were forced to consent to American demand or leave; this led to the belief that colonists felt art itself was viewed as a form of anti republican decadence (Maier.) After his period of dominance in America between 1760-1774, he departed for London, never to return (his family remaining in Boston until after his studies and travels were completed)(Matthew.) Although his income at home was incredible, it was only a matter of time before the loyalist decline and he could not resist the idea of living amongst other great painters and seeing the works of masters. His distaste for American culture is evident in his quote:
[I am...] “…peculiarly unlucky in Liveing in a place into which there has not been one portrait brought that is worthy to be call’d a Picture within my memory.”
Among his more famous works done in America were: The Return of Neptune [Fig. 4], The Boy with the Squirrel [Fig. 1] and many portraits such as the ones of Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, Mr and Mrs. Thomas Mifflin, Nicholas Boylston, Mrs. John Winthrop, Margaret Kemble Gage [Fig. 7], James Warren and Mercy Otis Warren (National Gallery of Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.)
By late 1774 he had already explored Paris and Rome, studied drawing and other art disciples and shared the company of another artist named Carter who kept a journal and documented Copleys relatively sad, yet proudly nationalistic commentary throughout. He often bragged of how incredible the future of art in America would be after independence and often compared ordinary items from Europe with ones from America and deemed the European types inferior (Matthew.) The men disliked each other and Copley was joyful after his tour and studies to finally return and settle in London in 1775 where his wife and family were waiting for him, and where they would live the remainder of their lives (Matthew.) Once settled, his already seeded talent, fame and reputation offered him the promise of success. If one compares his work done in American with the work completed in England, it is evident he began to favour historical, semi whimsical style as opposed to portraiture (Barker.) One of his most famous works, Watson and the Shark (1778)[Fig. 6] is a perfect example. Other than emotional battle scenes and his stylistic capture of human character, he’d never really ventured into exploring themes and more innovative ideas. As opposed to realism, studio portraiture and life painting, he began to journey deeper within himself and brought forth characters overcoming adversity and battling untold monsters (National Gallery of Art.) It is unlikely Copley actually witnessed a shark about to eat a youth, yet he captured the essence of the idea perfectly and became the first (known) native born American to actually pursue the delicate, newborn branches of conceptualism. Among some of his most famous works while he lived in England were: The Death of Major Peirson [Fig. 3], Young Lady with a Bird and Dog [Fig. 8], The Defeat of the Floating Batteries at Gibraltar, Watson and the Shark [Fig. 6], Portrait of the Copley Family [Fig. 5], and Head of a Man (a portrait of an African man)(National Gallery of Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) Copley’s talent lasted astonishingly long and only began to dwindle later in life, and at a very slow, but steady pace (Flexner.) In 1810 he had a bad fall and could not paint for awhile; after that his physical and mental health… and salary… began diminishing quickly. He regretted giving up his property in Boston when in June of 1815 the family received a visit from John Quincy Adams to speak of the peace between the nations (Matthew.) Soon afterward, in August of 1815 he suffered a stroke; although the initial stroke was not fatal, he had another episode later on September 9th, 1815 which claimed his life. He was buried in the Highgate Cemetery leaving his family in a great amount of debt from the unfruitful last few years of his life. In March of 1864, long after the death of Mrs. Copley, his unsold works were auctioned in London, many of which now reside in museums and private collections in America (Matthew.)
John Singleton Copley was a man of artistic brilliance. The first extremely influential, innovative creative mind of the colonies, an incredibly skilled portraitist, a pioneer of contemporary history paintings and conceptual thought and the first American bourn artist recognized by the renowned British art societies, his legacy in American art history will never fade. He didn’t just paint aesthetically appealing portraits and scenes for people to decorate their walls with, John Singleton Copley brought refined culture to a land still searching for its own self.
Works Cited
1. Maier, Pauline, Merrit R. Smith, Alexander Keyssar, and Daniel Kevles. Inventing America. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003.
2. Barker, Virgil. American Painting: History and Interpretation. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951.
3. “John Singleton Copley.” THE COLLECTION: National Gallery of Art. 31 July 2008 <http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pbio?6100 >.
4. Barratt, Carrie R. “John Singleton Copley.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 31 July 2008 <http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Copley/copley.html >.
5. Flexner, James T. John Singleton Copley. New York: Fordham UP, 1993.
6. Matthew, H. C., and Brian Harrison, eds. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. New York: Oxford UP, Incorporated, 2004.
Filed under: History | Tags: abolition, abraham lincoln, african, american anti-slavery society, american history, confederate, essay, frederick douglass, genesis 9:25, john quincy adams, racism, second great awakening, slavery, sojourner truth, stowe, uncle tom's cabin
PROMPT: Write a very detailed essay about how slavery was abolished in the US. Your discussion of this subject must be based on the following: a description of a minimum of nine people events, documents, wars, ideologies, groups, publications, beliefs, movements, inventions or anything else you feel is pertinent to the abolition of slavery and a description of a minimum of five people, events, documents, wars etc… That helped keep slavery intact.
Slavery has played a role in the history of innumerable societies across the globe but the United States took it to a different place. The birth of the New World under British command initiated the trend of slavery as being an early form of colonialism. In the beginning, Europe and the British did not draw a direct correlation between the concepts of racism and slavery; basically the act of owning another person was conducted solely for economic benefit. Slaves were to be bought, used for personal benefit and then sold as items. Free labor was the greatest opportunity for immense profit in a new land and the originators relied on the early emergence of Eurocentrism and the fundamental values of culture to justify their actions. Subsequently, nourished on the idea of white supremacy and raised to be owners of those unfortunate to be born with tanned skin, the new American culture grew to be racist. In 1865, directly after the Civil War, President Lincoln abolished slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment. Although this portion of history is extremely significant, it represents only a mere branch of the entire political tree that grew from the seed of people, events, wars, documents and beliefs that brought the thirteenth into existence.
First off, to understand why people had to fight for what seems like a natural, obvious, moral right one must understand the condition of the side of the South and their justification of slavery as a rational thing. From the beginning of history there were many white indentured servants however it was not until the US decided to populate its vast amounts of empty territory by Virginians and (more importantly ) plantation owners from Barbados who owned slaves of colour. In the 1660’s England’s ’surplus’ of people was null and the colonists were looking for people to populate land in order to defend territory and make money by charging annual ‘quitrents’ on the land. The wealthy sugar plantation owners from Barbados came with the first labour system containing black chattel slavery. Unlike the white indentured servants, the Africans were forced to work for their entire lives, their children being born into an entire life of servitude. This system of labour, especially with the colonies being so young, helped the American economy grow and prosper; it is because of this that Southerners tried to justify their actions. Its been said that what’s good for a nation isn’t always necessarily good for a/some individual(s.) If a monarchy favouring hereditary succession finds the line of royalty falling into the lap of a young king with a mental birth defect, what’s good for the nation is definitely not him and because of it he more than likely would have an ‘unfortunate’ fatal accident. The Southerners tried to instate a complex of white supremacy in order to get society to think an Africans place was in slavery because darker skin tone was a sign of lower grade human; essentially they pled African genetics were inferior and they could not function as well as whites mentally. However, the undertones of this harsh, false rationalization was money. Profit for themselves (plantation owners) and prosperity for the Americas. These elements, the beginning of Eurocentrism and white supremacy ideologies, were the first important factors in keeping slaves from freedom. Fast forward to early nineteenth century America and delve into the beginning of the era’s sectional feelings. The North favoured free labour, the South primarily slave labour. With the expansion of factories, workshops, canals and railroads, workers often referred to themselves as “slaves of machines” and complained about their condition of making enough money to rent property, but not enough to own and thereby being enslaved by an endless economic tug of war. The white workers had much resentment for the (few) free black competing for their jobs in the open market and thus were not ones for freeing the entire enslaved South, and apologists from the South argued that the Northerners were hypocrites founding their half of the economy with the work of ‘wage slavery.’ This time period was significant because between the North condition of workers and the South’s defense on slavery, it sparked the beginning of a religious awakening that (in addition to others) commenced a staunch abolitionist movement against slavery. Another argument the South tried to pursue involved the book Uncle Toms Cabin and Religion. In response to the book that ultimately turned many Northerners -many of which have never seen a slave- against slavery with its powerful, sympathy evoking representation of the harsh slave life, the South decided to seek justifications for slavery in the Bible. Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterian ministers argued that patriarchs in the Old Testament and the apostle Paul in the New Testament all owned slaves; Paul even pressed a runaway to return to his master. They cited Genesis 9:25:
9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
where Noah cursed his grandson Canaan (his son Ham’s son) and his future descendants to an eternal life of servitude -note that Ham was an ancestor of black Africans- and used this as blatant, divinely ordained justification for racial inequality. There were also several prominent publications such as George Fitzhugh’s proslavery books from the 1850’s and lithographs depicting the favourable contrasts of slavery in Southern America (joyful, dancing, singing Africans) versus slavery in England (small, hunched, unhappy looking white men, usually representing the North.) The South mustered everything they possibly could to try and make slavery look morally right and natural.
Despite the South’s seemingly adequate argument for slavery, the North’s abolitionist views simply made more sense and outnumbered them. With the dawning of the Second Great Awakening and the emotional intensity of the evangelical revivals was bourne the roots of abolitionism; the belief in religious equality and the ability that every soul can obtain salvation. The first official anti-slavery group was formed in 1833 and was named, most properly, the American Anti-Slavery Society. The society (although a bit contradictory as they were reluctant to let Africans hold leadership positions) made the issue of slavery well known to colonists through the distribution of literature called the Great Postal Campaign. This was especially important because it helped broaden the cause by moving a bit away from the evangelical standpoint it had originally been nurtured on and to a more applicable orientation: the ideological and political pedestal. There were also many less direct ways of anti-slavery ideas being introduced to the public such as the views of John Quincy Adams. Originally tolerant of slavery stating, “That the general treatment of slaves is mild and moderate,” he quickly changed his tune when he lost the reelection in 1828 mostly due to the lack of support from southern slaveholders. In 1836 when the House of Representatives presented the gag rule, Quincy was quick to petition and comment on slavery as, “A sin before the sight of God.” Other important aspects to the destruction of slavery involved black abolitionists, Christian ideologies, John Browns Raid, the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin and last but of course not least, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Black abolitionists during the Antebellum reform threw themselves wholeheartedly into the fight for emancipation, two of the most prominent being Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, both extremely effective leaders and public speakers. The Christian ideology of the time involved the self proclaimed thought of Antebellum reformers (white middle classed Protestants) as Christian soldiers (rather than social reformers) engaged in a war over morality and republican principles against the evils of sin and barbarism. John Browns Raid was led by the radical abolitionist John Brown who traveled the North giving lectures and collaborating with fellow abolitionists on plots to bring emancipation to the forefront of political, moral inquiry. In October of 1959 he and his twenty one recruits ventured Southward with the Harpers Ferry national armory as the sub-target, and the incitation of a slave rebellion that would ruin the South as the main priority. Although his raid was rather unsuccessful and he was soon executed, his mindset lived on and his actions were a strong premonition to what would come in the next couple years. The book Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a huge selling point for the abolitionists and with 6.5 million sales worldwide, one of the best selling books of all time. Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, the daughter of an evangelical abolitionist minister, the book depicts the gentle, good lives of two slaves and the harsh, evil treatment they received by their master. The Northerners who read the book (most of which had never seen a slave before) based their impressions on slavery solely off of its sympathy and compassion starved notes and began looking toward abolitionism. In 1862 Lincoln made comments that Stowe was the woman who “wrote the book that made this Great War.” Which segways into the four most distinguishing symbols of the anti-slavery movement (or the end to it, anyway): Abraham Lincoln and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Lincoln was an incredible leader with a great sense of balance… he was anti-slavery yet didn’t make it the largest of his political viewpoints until it was safe to do so, he was able to maneuver through the civil war to a victory, strengthen the US constitution, keep the union together and bring justice to all. With the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, slavery became illegal, all people born in the US from then on became natural citizens and no one from then on would be denied the ability to vote based off of (most importantly) race and color. Lincoln brought about and fought through victoriously possibly the most important era of American history… the divide between early American Independence and establishment and the beginning of the modern age and the industrial era (brought about by the necessary civil war that taught Americans how to mass produce), the shift of government control from emphasis on states to central state authority and into a country experiencing a new birth of freedom.
Filed under: History | Tags: american history, american renaissance, andrew jackson, democracy, essay, henry thoreau, jacksonian democracy, martin van burens, rise of the common man, romanticism
PROMPT: Write a detailed essay on the subject of “Jacksonian Democracy” that includes the answers to the following statements and questions: what is meant by the ‘Rise of the Common Man’, what was the influence of this belief on the politics of the United States, who were two presidents that represented this movement and why, how is the “The Rise of the Common Man” part of the Romantic Era and Relate “The Rise of the Common Man” to one other component of the Romantic Era.
The Rise of the Common Man refers to the principle philosophy of Andrew Jackson’s beliefs, most notably his fight for a completely democratic political system. Although thoughts of solid democracy were very common among the people during the time, Jackson was the confident figure needed to portray the picture politically and set forth the map of trails to a nation for the people.
The Rise of the Common Man was to bring the people into politics and have their own thoughts, rather than the thoughts of others in other classes (that may cause corruption of the system and manipulation of the people) to the forefront of electoral matters and government philosophies. Jackson’s election in 1828 and Martin Van Burens in 1836, the two presidents that represented the entire movement, signaled the start of a new age of government run by the people, for the people. The influences of their beliefs on the politics of the US were profound and included the movement toward universal white male suffrage and the qualifications for voting, a new nature of political campaigns, less monarchical like presidential terms and the addressing of the immorality of the exploitative rich to poor gap. They vowed to protect states’ rights, pay off the national debt, adopt policies concerning tariffs and internal improvements and stated that, “those abuses that have brought the patronage of the Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of elections, and… have placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands,” would be reformed and that the power would return to the people. Jackson believed that the key government officials should be directly elected by the people, that there should be an end to elitism and special privilege in government (i.e. presidential appointments should last no longer than four years), and he pressed for the vanquishment of the electoral college. He opposed the re-charter of the Bank feeling it was used as a tool by the rich to oppress the poor and because it foreclosed the mortgages on farmers (however there were also levels of personal spit such as the fact that Biddle made several loans to anti-Jackson politicians.) In effect he removed government deposits and placed them in the local banks, destroying the US Bank; this caused money in circulation to increase by nearly 300%, loans made increased 400%, inflation rose as loans were made to prospective land buyers and sales of western land increased from 4 million acres in 1832 to 20 million acres in 1836, states borrowed money for internal improvements, Jackson distributed the federal government surpluses to the states (stimulating even more spending and inflation) and in an attempt to check the spiraling inflation he issued the specie circular which required gold and silver for land purchases. He advocated the right of every white male to vote regardless of whether he owns land or not and rallied a LOT of supporters with the help of John C. Calhoun and especially Van Buren for his assembling coalitions of supporters in the East, South and Western interest groups.
The Rise of the Common Man was considered part of the Romantic Era for several reasons. The textbook defines Romanticism as the following:
Romanticism: Philosophical, literary and artistic movement of the nineteenth century that was largely a reaction to the rationalism of the previous century; romantics valued emotion, mysticism and individualism.
The ‘American Renaissance’ as many call it, was a time of excitement over the new found human possibilities and high regard for human individualistic ego. Romanticism invokes senses of infinite possibilities, liberalism, lofty ideas and everything opposite of realism. Although the term usually refers to music, art and literature (during the American Romantic Era, great works of literature were especially abundant) the term may also refer quite passionately to nationalism. During the American Romantic Era the newly independent people were looking for ways to express themselves to produce a sense of nationalism that could be attributed to the long for the evolution of democracy and the solidification of the US constitution. The Rise of the Common Man was partially the result of the people expressing themselves as a people involved in government and politics and the eagerness to create a category of US nationalism. This could be compared to the literary essay ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Henry David Thoreau. As a writer during the Romantic Era, Thoreau expressed his beliefs explicitly exclaiming the moral wrongs of slavery and his belief that people have permitted government to overrule their own consciences when they could in fact be the ones taking things into their own hands. His work, in addition to the other events that happened during the time period, demonstrated the people’s strong liberal tendency during the Romantic Era. They wanted changes and their expression through aesthetics, art, music, nationalism… everything… demonstrated just that.
Filed under: History | Tags: abolition, american history, antebellum, morality, reform, religion, rights, second great awakening
Prompt: Write a detailed essay on the subject of “The Second Great Awakening” that includes the answers to the following statements and questions: What were the basic changes the movement brought to religious doctrine, who was the most important person connected with the movement, how was the movement connected with westward expansion and be sure to describe how the “Second Great Awakening” is connected to the emergence of reform movements during the era and then describe a minimum of three of these reform movements.
Essentially the heart of the Second Great Awakening was a religious revival boldly repainting the previous thought on religion into a more optimistic, democratic theology that actually drew in the common people. Previously, it was thought (the Calvinist viewpoint) that people were predestined to heaven or hell and could not have a say in their own fates. The new evangelical theory pressed individual free will and the theory that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and that God is the free, loving, saving grace for humans.
The main source of information on the new theories came from inspirational bishops that traveled all over preaching about the new emotionally intense, passionate, musical, spiritually fulfilling interpretation of the Bible. The main intent of the leaders of the Second Great Awakening was for people to convert and be “born again” into a more moral, harmonized, perfect society. By depleting sinful practices such as drunkenness, idleness, Sabbath-breaking, prostitution, war and slavery, they would be making the world a more peaceful, Godly, moral place. The greatest leader of the religious movement was Charles Grandison Finney. Originally a lawyer who converted and became a Presbyterian minister, he became the most sought after preacher in America and his crusade directly affected the influx of religious families willing to adopt the new perfectionist sentiments. By 1835 three out of four adults maintained a church affiliation whereas in the 1790’s only one out of twenty did. The effects of this movement were especially significant because the majority of topics of moral and religious debate at the time also happened to be topics of current political controversy. The three most prominent reform movements (commonly referred to as Antebellum reform) initiated by the quest for morality included reforms in temperance, women’s rights and abolitionism. Temperance addressed the issue on individualized morality, women’s rights were the fight for equal rights among the sexes and abolitionism was the fight against slavery and attempt for equality among races. Because of the political nature of these well argued, democratic, religious issues, the advancement of American political democracy in government came up often in debate. Subsequent to the influx of new ideas, the new found American liberality, democratic appeal and other effects of the Romantic Era, the US began to form more accurately the framework of government we are familiar with today. Another point worth mentioning during this hectic time period is the effect of the Second Great Awakening on westward expansion. Although there was a lot of liberal thinking, open mindedness and even more toleration of radicalism during this time, there was one fairly large, successful denomination that was not accepted by society. The way of the Mormons was considered blasphemous to the other evangelical Christian groups; The Book of Mormons aroused hostility and the practice of polygamy was unspeakable. In 1844 when threats, lynchings and other attacks became reality they decided to move west, far away from their enemies. The travel was long and difficult and many died along the way. The majority of Mormons settled in the Salt Lake region and by 1860 their population reached 40,000 people. Before their journey, settlers of the West (other than Indians) were rare due to the rugged terrain and rural lifestyle. The Mormon migration attributed much to the beginnings of civilization in the vast West.
In conclusion, the Second Great Awakening had many prolific impacts despite its solid religious beginning. The converting of masses of people and standardization of social morality (and subsequently political morality) generally led to a more stable, unified nation (other than the abolition of slavery but that was necessary for the introduction of the Industrial Era and modernization later.) The reform movements led to further solidification of the US constitution acting as a precursor to Jacksonian Democracy, the war over slavery and, consequently and most importantly, a much more democratic government with more equal rights for the people. The Second Great Awakening nudged the slumbering, idle, Americans out of their warm cribs and into the world of opportunity that was always just outside the bars of their own, hand crafted oppression.
Filed under: History | Tags: american history, antietam, atlanta, battle, bull run, civil war, essay, five forks, gettysburg
PROMT: Choose the five most important battles of the Civil War then for each of the five write a minimum of three detailed reasons as to why the battle was significant. The reasons you choose may be based on a military, economic, political, diplomatic, psychological or any other factor you feel is relevant to the outcome of the war.
The American Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865. Throughout the war between the states there were many battles five of which proved to be substantially more significant that the rest: the first battle of Bull Run (July 1861), the battle of Antietam (September 1862), the battle of Gettysburg (July 1863), the battle of Atlanta (September 1864) and the Battle of Five Forks (April 1865.)
The first shots of the America Civil War were heard on July 21st 1861. The Battle of Bull Run took place at a railroad junction in Manassas (also called Bull Run); the junction connected Richmond with the farmlands and ironworks of Shendandoah Valley. The instances of importance for this battle were innumerable. For one it was the initial battle of the entire war and because of the nature of circumstance and outcome, it radically changed the premonitions of both sides. The North had the advantage of resource, basically the entire manufacturing industry that included the production of firearms, iron, cloth, transportation vehicles (i.e. locomotives) and boots among many other items, number of fighting aged males and perhaps most importantly the sheer number of white males as opposed to slaves i.e. the South would have to worry about loyalty and conspiracy issues since the majority of the population would be fighting against their own freedom. However despite the fact that the able, fighting white men of the north outnumbered that of the South, the able white men the Southern states did have were better trained for warfare and more accustomed to the arduous type of condition of combat due to the rough nature of agrarian work (as opposed to factory work in manufacturing up north.) The agrarian state of the South also proved their advantage with food availability however its inferior railroad system would prove detrimental to carrying it along with other supplies to the war areas. Although there are some other details such as the Confederate armies receiving aid from London in exchange for cotton (the Union blockade seemed to be ineffective in the beginning on average letting nine out of ten ships pass…) and the looting of Harpers Ferry Armory, for the most part the previously stated original conditions of the North and South were the primary causes for both sides feeling they had a paramount army and greater chance at winning. This false sense of confidence and personal security in themselves also led to both sides believing the rebellion would last a mere few months. This battle was significant because it set the stage for a four year war rather than the bit of short rebellious activity originally anticipated (with a Confederate victory, motivation at an all time high and the positive reinforcement of battle and success they obviously weren’t about to back down straight away.) It laid out a better picture for the North on just how hard they were going to have to work despite blatant naval advantages and seemingly obvious land (army) advantages (as they hadn’t expected the South to be so strong since they did not know about the aid from London) and post-battle the framework for the emancipation proclamation began to build which soon became the obvious essence of the war itself. Things were a bit slow at first only because Lincoln was clever and realized that by pleading both sides of the emancipation proclamation at first he would rally an enormous crowd as opposed to being extremely radical and making the people feel uncomfortable. Also, the abolishing of slavery obviously would entice blacks into joining the quest for freedom and since blacks made up the majority of the Southern army… the North would inevitably have an advantage which appeased the skeptics of the Northern public who otherwise may not have supported the Union or war itself.
In September of 1862 the battle of Antietam in Maryland began. If one combined all of the American casualties from the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War… they would only amount to half of the number of casualties killed in one day. The most lethal day of the American Civil War ended in a tie. This battle was extremely significant because had the outcome been slightly different, America would have encountered a radical change: the Confederacy would have won, the emancipation proclamation would have never been introduced and in effect the philosophy of the constitution and the founding fathers would not be fulfilled. Because the battle ended in a tie, the aftermath consisted of a neo-stalemate where the Confederate armies awaited attack only to encounter a brief air of post-militant neutrality; Lee took advantage of this time to withdraw and avoid possible annihilation. Had he not done so, had he taken advantage of the fact that they were twenty miles from Washington and invaded (presumably with an attempt to persuade voters to throw Lincoln’s supporters out of office what with the upcoming election two months away) then the fate of the outcome of the war would have been dramatically different. Britain and France were diplomatically watching Lee and the Confederates’ moves with the possibility of foreign intervention (on the side of the South) and official recognition of the Confederacy in mind. Obviously after hearing of Lee’s actions they decided nay on both accounts. A couple other reasons why the battle of Antietam was significant include that the battle was the first to lay down the foundation for modern warfare in a mass production, industrial based scheme (large armies with massive quantities of arms, ammo and other militia supplies), it was the first battle that witnessed the use of repeating rifles, submarines, mines and machine guns forcing the strategy of armed conflict to change, and last but not least it created a social tension and political involvement with warfare in that the armies took governmental disputes and filtered down to the people, average citizens, behind enemy lines and conglomerated them into the conceptual enemy of philosophical right and governmental doctrine. General William Tecumseh illustrated this well saying that, “When one nation is at war with another, all the people of the one are the enemies of the other… [armies were ordered] to destroy all depots of supplies of the rebel army, all manufactories (public or private) of guns, ammunition, equipment and clothing or their use.”
In July of 1863 Lee and the Confederate army headed toward Pennsylvania in hopes of invading Harrisburg, the capitol of the state and the home of a large railroad center that went from the Midwest to the east coast. Intercepted by the Army of the Potomac in Gettysburg, the forces of the North and South made this new battle the largest and most important battle of the entire Civil War. The Union forces strategically stayed on high ground a bit South of Gettysburg offering not only an advantage in numbers, but in position as well. Near the end of the battle Lee ordered his army to charge the center of the Union lines at Cemetery Ridge, PA. This move became known as Pickett’s Charge and it claimed nearly half of Lee’s men; the battle was an absolute catastrophe for the Confederates. More than one third of the army of the South was lost and Lee blamed himself; he asked Jefferson Davis to replace him but he refused despite his tactful strategies and successful time in combat in 1846. The battle of Gettysburg is interesting because, like in the battle of Antietam, the Union had at least a slight if not rather sizable advantage over the South… yet Lee and the Confederates were once again allowed to flee back into Virginia. Lincoln, obviously frustrated by now did in fact write General George Gordon Meade (leader of the battle of Gettysburg for the Union) exclaiming that, “Your golden opportunity is gone.” But why didn’t Lincoln make it absolutely clear from the beginning his intentions for the Union to demolish the South as soon as possible? What would have happened if the Union attempted a blockade since the Confederates had to pass the Potomac River and would be slowed down and relatively easy to capture? How would Davis have handled the war in first person combat? The battle of Gettysburg is so significant mainly because of the sheer amount of variables that could have changed the outcome of the war. Its been agreed upon that the Confederates retreat at Gettysburg along with the fall out of Vicksburg began the end of the Civil War. The two possibly most significant parts of this battle included the surrender of Port Hudson (the last Southern hold on the Mississippi River) and Lincolns Gettysburg Address. The famous Gettysburg Address speech was delivered on November 18th by Lincoln and its inspirational tenor helped keep the Army of the Potomac determined for victory; it has since been recognized as the greatest speech ever made by an American politician.
On September 2nd, 1864 Lincoln received a telegram in Washington stating that, “Atlanta is ours, and fairly won.” The battle of Atlanta was fought between General Sherman for the Union and General Johnston (later General Hood) for the South and ended in a strong Union victory and the capture of Atlanta. The importance of this battle was great because with the upcoming election only a few months away and the detrimental psychological effects of war on Lincolns followers beginning to harden and sculpt skeptics out of the people, a victory was needed to keep people content, Lincoln in office, and the philosophies of the American Constitution at the forefront. It has been said that the key to victory for either side during the war resided in the ability to break the other side’s will to fight. Without an adequate amount of victories, finding motivation would be hard and the daunted people would inevitably rebel and stop supporting the war. The capture of Atlanta boosted the spirits of the Union just in time for the election and Lincoln won with 55% of the popular vote and a 212-21 margin over McClellan in the Electoral College. Had there been no victory the newspaper headlines addressing Lincoln’s beliefs as “negro mania” may have overwhelmed the president’s reputation and subsequently possibly changed our entire history of freedom and quality. Other less critical items included the state of Atlanta in that it harbored a very important railroad hub and industrial center for the Confederacy, the taking of which would be felt exponentially harder in the South than had the same thing happened in the more industrial centered North and also the amount of Confederate casualties claimed that would be one of the last strings to pull from the war for surrender (the Union suffered about 3,500 deaths as opposed to the South with a staggering 8,500 claimed out of their already smaller militia.)
Last but certainly not least is the Battle of Five Forks, or the mark of the end of the Civil War. On April 2nd, 1865 Grant launched an attack on Lee’s army of Confederates (the last force left of the South) resulting in Lee’s surrender a week later on April 9th. This was a major battle because even before surrender it seemed likely that the Union would win. With all the uncertainty throughout the war, Lee’s understanding of the impertinent sacrifice of both Petersburg and the Confederate capitol, Richmond was the strongest indication of the war turning to favour the North. Outnumbered, without ally, industry and resources the South finally began rationalizing their decisions in warfare and ultimately came to surrender… without a capitol, the very land and epitome of Southern symbolic values, what was there to fight for? The odds seemed against them military wise and the people were drained both psychologically and economically. The last battle was of dire importance because without the ending it had the South perhaps could have escaped successfully and rebuilt their army; fortunately for everyone’s future, the Battle of Five Forks proved that adversity was at an all time high for Davis, Lee and the Confederates, and it was finally time to give up. Confirmed on April 11th with Lincolns address of peace, the end of the war reinstated the natural philosophy of the United States Constitution of man being equal and free, the rights we as Americans benefit from and cherish to this day.
In conclusion, the American Civil war held many battles that although not blatantly obvious at the time, held within themselves intrinsic details consequentially affecting the outcome of the war and more importantly, standard American political ethics and values.
Filed under: History | Tags: acquisitions, america, american history, annexation, essay, gadsden purchase, guana act, louisiana purchase, mexican cession, oregon territory, territorial, territory, texas annexation, treaty of guadalupe hidalgo, US
PROMPT: List all of the territorial acquisitions made by the United States between 1803 and 1877. Write a detailed account of how the US acquired each of the territories. You must also be able to discuss Manifest Destiny and all the controversy that surrounded it.
The earliest and largest territorial acquisition made by the United States was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. This area was considerably alluring to many powers including Spain and the French, the latter of which controlled the area for the majority of the colonial period up until 1763. Unfortunately, 1789-1799 was the heart of the French Revolution and weak after their defeat in the Seven Years’ War, the bit of naval conflict in the Quasi Wars that lasted until 1800, and the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars with Britain, the Louisiana area changed hands quite a few times.
After being in the hands of France for the majority of the 18th century Louisiana was yielded to Spain in 1763 following their vanquishment in the Seven Years’ War. This left the third president, Thomas Jefferson, in a sedated state of content, sure that the land will be ready for the taking in the future whenever American westward expansion was needed. What Jefferson did not know is that in May 1801 Spain had given Louisiana (in addition to New Orleans) back France which was then being run by Napoleon Bonaparte. This became evident when in 1802 New Orleans and everything south of the Mississippi closed their ports to American trade. Because the majority of westerners shipped products east through New Orleans, Americans were outraged and urged Jefferson to take action against the French. Fortunately the United States had friendly connections with the islands (such as Haiti) and they were supportive in keeping France off. This led to Napoleon offering Livingston and Monroe (the ambassador of France and a friend and ally of Jefferson) all of Louisiana AND New Orleans for $15 million. Napoleon needed the finances for the renewed war with Britain (Napoleonic War) and for three cents an acre and a peaceful agreement, the deal was one that the US could not refuse and the papers were signed on April 30th 1803. Although Jefferson, a man of the constitution, never held that the purchase was constitutional due to the timing and lack of a proper amendment addressing new territory, the Louisiana Purchase is thought to be one of the greatest achievements of his presidency. The need, whether based off of manifest destiny (the controversial philosophy that it was only natural that the inhabitants of the American lands were destined or fated to acquire the entire continent) to span sea to sea or the hopes of raw materials, the fur trade, agriculture prosperity or adequate defensible borders in addition to the urgent, expedited nature of the deal all justify the presidents’ breaching of personal philosophy.
After the Louisiana Purchase and despite the Embargo Act flop, a failed attempt at neutrality in European affairs, the explorers of the United States continued to drudge on. Lewis and Clark documented their western findings and in 1805 Lieutenant Zebulon Pike began to probe the headwaters of the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers. After exploring the Arkansas Rivers source in what’s now southern Colorado he for reasons unknown began exploring the desert and headwaters of the Rio Grande. He was soon caught by Spanish troops who returned him to the border. What’s interesting about this is that the doctrine for the Louisiana Purchase wasn’t extremely clear so there was a lot of speculation as to whether or not West Florida was part of the deal and respectively, part of the United States. What with borders swaying and portions of land changing hands several times before the final settlement the nations did not know to whom the land rightly belonged. Spain felt the Louisiana Purchase itself was illegal as Napoleon had told them it would not be sold so West Florida was worth a great deal to them and would not be given up easily; this led to an array of arguments and conspiracy ultimately ending in the Transcontinental Treaty stating that all of Florida would be American territory and in turn the United States would acknowledge Texas as ruled by Spain as of February 22, 1819.
After the War of 1812, the expansion of the United States took off at a remarkable pace; between 1816 and 1821 Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine and Missouri all joined the union. With the ending of the war removing all foreign power in US territory, the Indians had little comfort in knowing that it was only in time that the Americans would take over their land without the protection of Britain. The majority of Indians including the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws and Seminoles surrendered their land in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to the Americans however some did resist resulting in the Indian Removal Act in 1830 and a war with the Seminoles in Florida.
Up until the 1840’s Texas, New Mexico, California and Oregon were considered vast, unknown regions with claims of ownership disputable between the US and Britain. However the Texas annexation in 1845, the establishment of American title to Oregon Territory in 1846, the Mexican cession of 1848, the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico in 1853, the purchase of Alaska, and the annexation of Hawaii brought the land area of the United States to its present boundaries. The Oregon Territory was settled with The Oregon treaty with Great Britain, the Mexican Cession was a purchase from Mexico following the American-Mexican War ($15 million and $3.25 million in assumed claims) the Gadsden Purchase cost $10 million (paid to Mexico), Alaska was purchased in 1867 from Russia for $7.2 million but didn’t achieve statehood until 1959 and the Hawaiian Islands were acquired in 1898 as an annexation of independent republic that received statehood in 1959 with Alaska. The new States were admitted into the Union by acts of Congress (usually) by petition of the citizens residing in the territories in question. The boundaries of these States were defined in the enabling acts (however for some States, notably Missouri and Texas, the boundaries were changed by subsequent legislation) as opposed to the thirteen original states that which were not defined by acts of ratification but rather established by the crown or by mutual agreement.
The Texas annexation, Mexican cession and Gadsden Purchase were all rather complicated and shall be further elaborated on. The Texas annexation was a peculiar situation because it started directly after the Texas revolution ended with the freshly elected House president Houston (of the republic of Texas) almost pleading with Jackson to annex Texas as soon as possible… however it was near the end of Jacksons term, the self elected Van Buren was next in line (who was also opposed to slavery and Texas was still pre-abolition) and the economy was still in a steep downward fall. Jackson decided nay on the annexation but on March 2, 1837 he did sign a document officially recognizing it as a sovereign state. After dabbling a bit in Oregon and California, the independent Texas, along with portions of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado were annexed and became part of the US. This led to controversy because Mexico barred the move illegal as they still felt Texas was part of Mexico rather than independent; subsequently this led to the Mexican-American War. Wilmot Proviso, who prohibited slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico, and President polk fought with Mexico all around the Rio Grande and throughout the rugged Mexican Terrain while dealing with the new settlers of California. The war ended with the Mexican cession in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Polks reluctant compliance to taking all of California, Nevada, Utah, portions of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming ( also established was the Texas-Mexican border with the Rio Grande) instead of all that in addition to all of Mexico as some had hoped. America’s Manifest Destiny, the long to span ’sea to sea’ was fulfilled (at least for a short time.) The war with Mexico also served as a precursor to the full realization of America’s strengths of being an industrialist nation and a technologically advanced country that would be revealed more later on in the Civil War. Another significant geographic event was the Gadsden Purchase. After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo tensions with Mexico were at an all time high because the US was trying to build a southern transcontinental railroad and needed the land of the present day states Arizona and New Mexico to do so. Fortunately after negotiation and some conflict with private companies, the land needed for the railroad was sold to the US under the condition that they would help with the native american attacks.
There were also many other smaller, often disputed acquisitions such as the islands claimed under the Guana Act of 1856 that included Baker Island, Howland Island, Navassa Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll and the Midway Islands. After 1877 the US continued to take on more islands such as Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, The Federated States of Micronesia… etc etc many of which are self governing, unincorporated or uninhabited.
Filed under: English and Literature, Government and Politics, History | Tags: american history, common sense, political, politics, revolution, thomas paine, war
In standard logic one may learn that there is much room for fallacy in the equation, “If P, then Q.” Although this may run true in some situations, in others, like when logic acts as a catalyst to history, stakes are high and there are prodigious, often revolutionary results. There are some literary works in history that without question have played an extremely significant role in shaping society as it is today; one of these works is Common Sense by Thomas Paine. If the government of the United States of America has become its own, independent, effective, non-tyrannical, benefit to society then it is because of his brilliant thoughts put into writing that we owe our liberty. Published during the American Revolution, post the intolerable acts, the sole purpose of the dissertation was to push Americans into actively pursuing Independence.
In the mid to late 1700’s British oppression was at an all time high and the colonists were looking for an alternative. Although thoughts on independence and severing ties completely weren’t exactly few and far between, there was very little organization, strategic planning and complete solutions to solidify a definitive plan of action… everything was sort of just in the air. The propagated objective for Common Sense was for Paine to gather the sporadic bits of revolutionary thought floating about and combine them into one, compact, inspirational, action provoking handbook to complete independence. It’s hard to even begin to delve into how brilliant a work of art was the call to arms that translated common but unsure colonist feelings into a language of logical thought. Paine’s genius argument for independence appealed to the artisans, merchants, soldiers, farmers, Christians, pragmatists, seculars and radicals while also putting in a few words to sympathize with loyalists before again resuscitating and likewise strengthening his own revolutionary ideas.
“I shall not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU.”
In the above quote Paine quotes Gideon in the Bible emphasizing monarchy as a non-divinely ordained design and in fact later mentions, ” [monarchy] …is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews.” Although Paine was an Atheist, it’s evident he understood the weight of religion on society because he manipulated it well in convincing the devout that monarchy and being under British rule was sinful. By indirectly saying that it was Gods will for American independence he was winning over the entire (and vast) intrinsically pietistic crowd. And religion was only one among several tactics used to rally support; Paine was also quite talented at playing the broader side of the english language.
“Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families”
Acknowledging the coined term ‘mother’ or ‘parent’ country when addressing Britain, Paine created brilliant metaphors on colonial linguistics obliterating a word that ceteris paribus leads to feelings of adoration, warmth and security and rather profiled said definition with feelings of betrayal, abuse and selfishness. A few other points Paine emphasized included describing American independence as an inevitable event, describing the disadvantages with the relations of the rest of Europe by being associated with Britain, exemplifying the colonies’ ability to procure a strategic defense equal to that of Britain, describing the absurdity of hereditary succession, describing the absurdity of loyalty to a continent thousands of miles away that which would be of no help during a sudden attack, reciting the many benefits of independence, exclaiming America’s ship building abilities and naval potential all in addition to laying out an ENTIRE example of a non-tyrannical government. Also, because it was written in an easy to understand, common vernacular the text was understood by nearly every literate person and within just the first three weeks an estimated 130,000 copies were being read and his ideas being spread like wildfire (2.) With the text being lectured in schools, spoken of in taverns and even in one instance replacing a sermon in Connecticut, there’s little doubt it would’ve been hard to find someone without some Common Sense in them in colonial America (3.)
What exactly made Paine’s simple writing such an inspirational success? What about the works of James Otis, John Dickinson, Stephen Johnson and the likes (4)? Political pamphlets were not uncommon during the American revolution and many shared similar thesis’; what made Common Sense different was the clarity and sheer amount of reason, unquestionable logic and compelling argumentation. His rhetorical fervor combined with his dogmatic self confidence in his own ideas compel the reader to take opinion as blatant fact. Despite his lack of formal education he procured one of histories finest political literary works.
In standard logic, mathematics and scientific discourse state that “If P then Q” and “P only if Q” are idiomatically equivalent. These being the most comprehensive, objective facets of knowledge, it is most definitely safe to say that in conclusion, the United States of America has become an independent, non-tyrannical country only if Thomas Paine’s brilliant, inspirational work, Common Sense was the official call to arms that ignited the flame of the American Revolution.
Bibliography
1. Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. New York: Fall River P, 1995.
2. Maier, Pauline, Merrit R. Smith, Alexander Keyssar, and Daniel Kevles. Inventing America. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003.
3. Powell, Jim. “The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty.” Foundation for Economic Education. Jan. 1996. 10 July 2008 <http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=2849>.
4. Bailyn, Bernard. “Pamphlets of the American Revolution.” Harvard University Press. Harvard University. 10 July 2008 <http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/BAIPA1.html>.
